We live in a republic, not a democracy. The constitution sets up a system of sound money not fiat currency, and for good reason. I think it was funny how he dodged the question of how his hero would of totally hated the idea of a central bank. Though, it isn't the idea of the central bank and fractional reserve that would of been most disturbing, it would off been the complete control of the money system being in the hands of the government. Historically speaking, this almost always results in either hyper-inflation or stagflation.

Greenspan himself was a former Austrian economist until he moved on up the chain of command. The same happened with Nixon and other various political figureheads. Power corrupts I guess

Austrian economics are horrible. Complete deregulation? Are you mad?

The invisible hand does not exist. This has been proven over and over again.
Just ask Joseph Stiglitz, nobel prize winning economist.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/dec/05/us-economy-keynesian-economic-theory

The current financial meltdown is due to deregulation, some people think that more deregulation is in order but that's like giving the heroin addict more heroin..

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
We live in a republic, not a democracy.

Same thing. The definition of republic is much broader than that of a democracy, and USA fulfills both categories. It is a democracy, but it is also a republic.

The distinction usually politically charged, because democrats want to call it a democracy and republicans want to call it a republic. They are both right (or wrong).

^ Deregulation is only one step in unraveling a tangled web of government intervention. The REAL problem is the banks were forced not to discriminate against poor black males with no ability to repay loans. Deregulation made it possible for the banks to transfer huge amounts of bad assets to the capital markets a large. You are confusing the problem with assuming that "deregulation" of banks were the only regulations that mattered. This is a classic example of one bad law, needed 2 more to make up for it. Then you need 2 more laws to make up for the bad laws that made up for the one law...its a spiral. When governments tell you and me what to buy, what to eat, how to think, and what to consume, it results in tyranny and oppression. Free market isn't perfect, you will never have a perfect system. But what you can seek to achieve is a system that works the best for the most amount of people to achieve what they want for their lives. There are no other systems developed in practice around the world that do that more than free market economies.

There are plenty of Nobel prize winners on both sides of the argument, so naming one or the other isn't really a valid objection to this claim.

^ I don't really even pay attention to the names of the parties to be honest...it doesn't really matter. My point is we are a system very akin the the roman system of laws to eliminate rule of the mob. The US is a constitutional republic, meaning we follow the rule of law of which are not subject to the public's mood at the time (ie mob rule). Laws have to be changed by representative, and even then, laws cannot violate the most basic set of laws established by the constitution, the most base law of the land. I think the distinction is only a small point for the context of the video though. But point being is the government has no authority to do what it is doing and has just assumed the role it was never given authority over.

This was one of the main arguments over the Bill or rights to begin with, The proponents of it suggested that the government would take on more and more power and there needed to be a section dedicated to what they would not regulate. The objectors said the constitution would only let the government do what was explicitly stated...as you can see we have a mixed bag. Some things the government just stays out of, but more often than not, it intercedes.